Response to ESI's conclusion re exit polls as evidence

[Land Shark]

Eomer quotes or characterizes ESI's paper as follows:

"In this paper, Can Exit Polls Be Used to Monitor Elections?, an ESI "panel of experts" concludes that "exit polls, by themselves, could not be used to monitor elections because of inherent polling imprecision"."

I haven't read the paper but this kind of apparent discussion by the other side is getting LandShark very upset. For godsakes, CONFESSIONS are not suitable evidence of anything, BY THEMSELVES. By law, with confessions there MUST be evidence besides one's own self-incrimination. Occasionally people confess to things they didn't do. Does this mean confessions should not be used in the process of proving criminal culpability?

THis conclusion above (..."by themselves...") purports to weaken exit polls and will be taken by many to do so, but really says nothing.

Reminds me of the "exit polls were never intended to detect or prove election fraud" argument. That's just brain-dead, like going into court and saying that your client's fingerprint evidence should be suppressed since it was never INTENDED or DESIGNED to constitute evidence of a crime.

God, what have we done to deserve this level of BS?

Hmm. Come to think of it, these kinds of arguments are the sign of a

DESPERATE

FACT-FREE

CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER.

Perhaps these specious arguments showing up in articles that will be cited against the case for election fraud or irregularities is a good sign?

[Melissa G]

1. link please n/t

[Bill Bored]

3. 2nd report on this page:

http://votewatch.us/reports/view_reports

But before you judge them, read the rest of their work.

On 12/7/04, when ESI said the Ohio election results were "not auditable", which was HUGE, there was hardly a peep on DU was there? Maybe ESI just has a public relations problem.

As far as Land Shark's comment, I agree, but the words "by themselves" could also encourage further investigation into the possibility of fraud and improved exit polling techniques as well.

AFAIK, the commission of a crime still requires means, motive and opportunity. The exit polls indicate none of these. (Do we even have the precinct raw data yet, or are we still debating this based on AVERAGE WPE?)

How many of those with blind allegiance to the exit polls, based on their use in the Ukraine for example, would be so supportive given the fact that they were likely arranged by the CIA, just like Bush's "supporters" waving those American flags in Georgia last week?

The fact that the opposition candidate in the Ukraine was poisoned and almost died adds quite a bit of weight to the exit poll evidence, doesn't it? John Kerry looked pretty healthy during the campaign though. If anything, Shrub looked as if he were having a stroke or something!

[Sawyer]

5. Ukraine -

How many of those with blind allegiance to the exit polls, based on their use in the Ukraine for example, would be so supportive given the fact that they were likely arranged by the CIA, just like Bush's "supporters" waving those American flags in Georgia last week?

In the second Ukrainian election, the one that elected Yuschenko, there were three exit polls. All three were wrong way outside of MOE. I really do not see how Ukraine example can be used to show that exit polls are accurate.

[Kip Humphrey]

12. UKRAINE only shows up the absolute hypocracy of the Fourth Reich

In the UKRAINE, exit polls prove fraud.
In the US, exit polls can't prove fraud.

Same pollig company, same polling model, similar polling results at odds with reported vote. Different truths.

[Sawyer]

14. Who says it is the same polling company or model? n/t

[Peace Patriot]

22. Bill, I have not read any poster at DU who has exhibited "blind allegiance

...to the exit polls." Even TIA, who has done such a tremendous job of analyzing the exit polls, also analyzes official tally data and other statistics, the Election Incidents Reports, the election system itself, and other aspects of the election, as a total picture. (See TIA's "To believe Bush won, you have to believe" series.)

One could look at this picture the other way around--fraudulent election SYSTEM, significant evidence of a predicted Kerry win (for instance, nearly 60/40 Democratic success in new voter registration in 2004, most most new voters voted for Kerry, most Nader voters switched to Kerry, etc.), reports of 86 out of 88 touchscreens changing Kerry votes to Bush votes, many strange anomalies and machine malfunctions all favoring Bush, massive Voting Rights Acts violations against Democratic voters in Ohio and Florida, Bush's utterly miserable approval ratings and huge opposition to all his policies in opinion polls, AND the exit polls showed a comfortable Kerry win.

Or

The exit polls showed a weird and impossible skew to Bush in the official tally in just the states Bush needed to win, AND the exit polls showed an overall Kerry win.

Like that. The exit polls are just one piece of the election fraud picture. I don't think anyone has asserted otherwise. It's getting a lot of focus right now because of various actions by the other side to debunk them (worried, are they?) and the new USCV report.

[Land Shark]

2. I'm linking to this other DU link on ESI

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=368051&mesg_id=368051>

[Time for change]

4. However

Eomer goes on to quote more of the article later on in his post. Right after the sentence about exit polls by themselves could not be used to monitor elections, the next sentence in the article is:

Nonetheless, for future elections,
exit polls do have important uses in
election monitoring.

In other words, this group is saying that exit polls should have some role, but other evidence is needed.

[Land Shark]

6. One must be fully aware that any complete sentence

can and will be used by the other side, so they should never make statements that appear complete but really aren't complete.

But i disagree any way, exit polls all by themselves are evidence sufficient to constitute cause to investigate further both the exit poll as well as the election itself.

[Time for change]

19. Yes, I certainly agree

that exit polls by themselves constitute sufficient evidence for further investigation.

To put a generous interpretation on the statement that exit polls shouldn't be used by themselves to "monitor" elections, maybe that statement was meant to mean that they don't constitute definititve proof by themselves.

At this point I'm all for using exit polls plus any other available means to monitor elections.

[Kip Humphrey]

13. Only doesn't apply to Bush

Exit polls to monitor elections:

OK in the past.
OK in the future.
Does not apply for GW Bush in 2000 and 2004!

Quite the argument!

[garybeck]

7. I officially question the motives of ESI and Hertzberg

there is a pattern:


minimizing the value of exit polling

giving credit to the "reluctang Bush supporter" hypothesis with no scientific explanation or data

saying that people who question the results of the election are on a "witch hunt"

runs the election science instititute, but according to his own bio he has no scientific credentials or background. he mysteriously leaves out any description of his schooling, diplomas, credentials.

out of 19 people on the "vote watch team" only two have a "Dr" in front of their name. This is "science?" We're supposed to believe their report over the USCV report that was compiled by a team of virtually all PhD statisticians?

did an "investigation" into the Ohio election and didn't think it was important to look at any of the voting machines, ballots, or investigate any of the allegations of stickers on ballots. When asked specifically about the stickers on ballots, ignored the question.

misrepresented the facts about the random hand counts in the Ohio recount. stated that the directions were not clear on the definition of "random," while Blackwell's own commission condemned the Lucas County Board of Elections for not following the clear directions on randmoness and stating emphatically directions were clear. (and they were)

Refusing to even look at much evidence that was presented to him, including the entire Election Incident Reporting System (EIRS), which shows 99% of vote switching went from Kerry to Bush. Says it's not a scientific study. (personal note - I'm trying to figure out what gives him the authority to decide what is scientific and what isn't. Maybe if he told us what kind of education and/or degree(s) he has we could better understand why he can or can't judge what is scientific and what isn't. For some reason, other people who have PhD's are willing to look at the EIRS.)

Says the evidence of machine allocation and long lines at democratic precincts in Ohio is "heresay" and "innuendo" while the raw data CLEARLY shows otherwise.

IS THERE A PATTERN HERE?

[Kip Humphrey]

15. Beautifully stated... All anyone needs to debunk this crap!

the RNC-directed Mitofsky is simply trying to cloud the facts and subdue the growing number of Americans who think the election was stolen (now 35%).

If there are any PhDs on the Vote Watch team, they're most likely Doctors of Public Relations!

[Sawyer]

16. Let's see -

One of the Vote Watch team:

Dr. Fritz Scheuren

Fritz Scheuren, Ph.D., is a statistical consultant for the Human Rights Data Analysis Group of the AAAS Science and Human Rights Program. He is the Vice-President for Statistics at the National Opinion Research Center (NORC), and the President-Elect of the American Statistical Association (ASA).

Yes, I think you'd rather believe TIA. I am sure he knows better.

[garybeck]

21. read what I said

my post did not mention TIA at all. It referenced USCV, which is a consortium of experts, most of which are PhD statisticians.

[mod mom]

17. and may I add from another post on ESI...

If the "incompetence/fraud" was a wash between parties, as Steve Hertzberg informed an election reform activist in Ohio.....

Where are the incidents of dems applying stickers over bu$h?

Did the dems participate in the faux "Homeland Security Alert" on election day?

Did Dem volunteers have unsupervised access to unsecured ballots in Lucas County (as the repugs reportedly did in a Blackwell investigation) prior to the election?

Were the companies who were responsible for machines/source code big Dem fundraisers who promised the election to Kerry?

Was the person responsible for overseeing the Ohio election and BOEs a dem who also served as co-chair for Kerry/Edwards '04?

IT'S NOT ONLY THE EXIT POLLS!!!

[Bill Bored]

8. There are at least 2 threads about this, but...

...has anyone noticed that whenever the MSM reports their "projected results" on election night, they always say they are "based on X% of precincts reporting" in a particular state?

Now, are these exit poll precincts, or actual precincts reporting their results? And are they partial results in each precinct or close to 100% in each precinct, or a combination of partial and complete results, or what? And are they a combination of exit polls and results too?

Just wondering.

[pgh_dem]

18. my understanding

It uses the same kind of math that exit polling does, except with the real numbers reporting in from whatchacallit (bellweather?) districts. They extrapolate from certain districts which have historically given clear indications of how their region/state tend to vote, and are rarely far off from the final numbers.

i think :)

[kster]

9. Close up shop

and lets go home, ESI says everything is on the up and up. NOT !
We know precisely how the theft, that made them exit polls go haywire was pulled off. No report can take that knowledge away. Keep pushing

[Land Shark]

11. Yeah, the "overall thrust" is what people take away from things

like ESI, so little technical quotes are real but not quite as important as the general ideas the reader will take away.

[kster]

10. kick.nt

[Coexist]

20. kick n/t